User talk:EVula/Apr-Jun 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EVula is dealing with real-life crap (see the links). I'll be around, but not doing much more than WP:CHU patrols.

This is an archive of EVula's past discussions. You can't edit the contents of this page, so nyah. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, head over to User talk:EVula instead.

This archive contains comments posted between April 2008 and June 2008.

Archives
Current April 2008 – ongoing January 2008 – March 2008 October 2007 – December 2007 July 2007 – September 2007 April 2007 – June 2007 January 2007 – March 2007 October 2006 – December 2006 July 2006 – September 2006 April 2006 – June 2006 January 2006 – March 2006

I'm Shocked!

Wow I just noticed this on my watchlist...I'm shocked! Well I hope the reason you are leaving is under good circumstances and not due to on/off Wiki stress :(. Feel free to contact me any time via email if you ever wish to chat.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Crap, now I feel bad. Just my little contribution to April 1, albeit a bit premature. Goes hand-in-hand with the rickroll article I just split. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Gosh darnit!!! I've been the butt of how many jokes today?! I'm too gullible...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You may have fallen for the prank, but your message did make me feel extremely appreciated, which always goes a long way. The prank put a smile on my face in way that was totally unexpected; thank you. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just came back on wikipedia after a while, and I was like "Wow, EVula retired?". And then I click the link and here comes youtube. That was too good. --Hirohisat^(Talk) 02:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate you dude, don't do this to me!!! ~ Riana ⁂ 02:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Riana said it. :P I really have to think of a good joke for tomorrow. Last year I tied my brother in law (who wasn't my brother in law yet) to his bed. He eventually got out of it, and then came and socked me. LOL. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:08 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Rickroll

How is adding this info not a violation of the very definition of the WP:OR policy on Wikipedia? Cirt (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not an original thought; nobody is saying the rationale behind the decision. It's something that has happened. That's a fact, regardless of citation. Is it original research? In my opinion, no. Does it need a valid source? Yes. But like I said, insisting on a source for something that is mere hours old is downright silly. At this point, we're moving faster than most news websites; I have no doubt that the YouTube stunt will get documented somewhere, but it just hasn't happened yet.

Does it mar the article a bit? Possibly. That doesn't change the fact that it's just going to keep getting added over and over in the coming hours; containing the relevant bit of information is far more productive than attempting to squash it entirely. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't the fact that you have to go the YouTube, check out what is going on for yourself, and then come back to the article constitute a violation of the WP:OR policy, as opposed to citing a secondary WP:RS/WP:V source that discusses and analyzes the event ? (FYI, as an aside, I have been adding some more potential sources to a Further reading section). Cirt (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR defines original research as "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". Stating that YouTube rickrolled everyone doesn't do that; it's a statement of fact. However, that ignores the fact that swing Wikipedia shortcuts around isn't constructive. All we need to about it is keep it tagged with {{fact}} and then replace it when the source comes along. Yes, it sucks, but sometimes you have to take a step backwards to take two steps forwards.

And yes, I saw your edits; fantastic work. There are several on Talk:Never Gonna Give You Up as well. If I wasn't prepping for a vacation, I'd be doing more to help out, but I doubt my girlfriend would accept "I was improving the Rickroll article" as a valid excuse for why I still had stuff to do... EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you make some valid points above, and the {{fact}} tag is certainly a good compromise for the time being, and this will most likely get press/media exposure soon. Thanks for the comment about my edits, I also posted a note to the talk page - hopefully adding pre-formatted cites to a Further reading section will make it easier for other editors to incorporate some of that stuff into the article - sometimes new sources crop up too fast to add em all at once, and that is an easy way to at least show people the significant amount of coverage this is getting in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ringler Associates

Hello, I am writing about the deletion of the Ringler Associates Page. I am a new user, but I followed to the best of my knowledge all the requirements for page creation, and I was wondering why the page was deleted. I understand that it was tagged as advertising, but as it lists only factual information it seems to me that under this criteria nearly all pages for companies etc (i.e. State Farm) would need to be deleted. You are obviously an experienced and knowledgeable user, if you could please tell me what can be done to keep the page up I would appreciate it. Thanks Ringlernm (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this, but it got buried in the numerous April 1st messages I got. Are you still interested in pursuing this? EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, I would still like to pursue this. Thanks! Ringlernm (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn You

Got me. [1] :) Pedro :  Chat  15:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How quickly people forget the date. Awesome, dude! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

 :(

:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:( (22:16 ro) (CTU) 8002 lirpA 1 , 22:51 (klat) htuos ylpmiS.

OMG I've been rickrolled! --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not getting me a second time... i hope $%" Simply south (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome To Wikipedia!

Welcome!

Hello, EVula, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Acalamari Bellatrix! 17:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

=D

I fell for it :P Although I became suspicious when your "essay" was meant to be on Meta yet the link in the bottom right was to YouTube :P Very nice though ^_^ ≈ The Haunted Angel 18:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

*quietly blocks EVula per Cabal* Anthøny 18:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Awarding Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 14	31 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2009 to be held in Buenos Aires	Sister Projects Interview: Wikisource
WikiWorld: "Hammerspace"	News and notes: 10M articles, $500k donation, milestones
Dispatches: Featured content overview	WikiProject Report: Australia
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Dave Ramsey Show (TV Series)

EVula - I just saw that the Dave Ramsey Show (TV Series) was merged with the Dave Ramsey article without any proposal or discussion. Since this is an increasingly popular television show that isn't really about him, I'm confused as to the reasons for this decision? Jrclark (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I may have gone a bit overboard in overhauling the Ramsey article. However, there was nothing in the article to suggest that it was anything than an average TV show stub... I wouldn't be upset if you felt that the merge should be reverted.

Honestly, though, everything related to the man on Wikipedia just reeks of spam; that's the whole reason I was gutting his article to begin with, and am perfectly willing to admit that I may have been a bit overzealous. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know too much about his other articles (I know he has a pretty successful radio show, but I have yet to find it on the dial), but I do think the television show warrants a separate article. I suspect that as Fox Business gets picked up by additional cable providers, his profile and ratings will grow dramatically. I started the television show article, I can vouch for it not being spam or advertising. Jrclark (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, what about an article that covers both shows?, with a later spinning-out of individual pages at a possibly later date. That would also allow the entire block to be removed from his article, which would make it read a lot better. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

EVula, I think that sounds like a decent idea for now. Jrclark (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the chance to fix our article before letting it get deleted.

The royal we, our, etc. in your reply to my comments on the (now deleted) discussion about the (then proposed) Scikotics article is humorous.

Just because something isn't verifiable via the Internet, doesn't make it unverifiable. Just because something isn't notable for a small group of Wikipedia editors, doesn't mean that it isn't notable. Wikipedia was once a great concept, now it's just a joke. No wonder it's not accepted as a source for college papers.

Have a great day. No really.

Ntwrkguru (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Couple of things:

• Glad you found me funny. :)
• I hold no illusion that our notability guidelines are 100% perfect. However, no sources were provided in the week that the AfD ran, or in the entire year that the article existed. I would be more than willing to overturn the deletion and restore the article if I were shown sources that proves that Scikotics has achieved a reasonable amount of attention from the press. Deletion is not permanent.
• No tertiary source is, or ever has been, accepted as a source for college papers. Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, are tertiary sources.

Hopefully I'll hear back from you with some sources. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Closing of AFD's

I will be online today at 12:00PM (my time its currently 8:27AM) if you wish to discuss these and I can tell you my rationale for closing these AFD's. Thanks and Happy Editing!! Dusti^{talk to me} 12:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for your rationale; I was telling you to stop. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, your being uncivil and I completley disagree with your process. Please read my talk page and the discussion that took place after you left your edit. Dusti^{talk to me} 16:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dusti, this isn't the right approach on your part. You're allowed to disagree, but you have an uphill battle here with several editors/admins. This all needs to stay in one place, your talkpage. Don't go 'round stirring things. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize you think I'm being brusque; I'm not actually even going to disagree with you, as you might very well have a point. (and yes, I did see what was posted; I replied to it on the ANI thread) But that doesn't change the fact that you're way out of line by closing AfDs. You've been told again and again not to do it, yet you continue to assert that you should. I don't want to block you, but if you keep disrupting the AfD process, that's exactly what is going to happen. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

copied to Dusti's talk page (will respond there) Dusti^{talk to me} 16:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 15	7 April 2008	About the Signpost

April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins	WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges"
News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just in case your not watchlisting Keeper's talkpage

Please review the converstion and add your thoughts, views, and concerns. Thanks and Happy Editing Dusti^{talk to me} 18:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Kurt "drama"

Very disappointing. As you well know, the drama is happening only here, and only because some don't even kindly ignore a quipping comment by myself, when at the same time they demand tolerance or even acceptance for Kurt's opposes. Actually, disappointing is not the right word. Absolutely unacceptable comes a lot closer. The comment of mine you removed was not about Kurt, but a quip regarding his rationale. I won't restore it, of course, because I'm calm as a cow right now because I spent the last hour and a half fucking like an animal. But it's still unacceptable. Dorftrottel (complain) 21:18, April 10, 2008

I do apologize for not dropping you a line about it; one of the problems with editing from work is that I can't concentrate on a single issue, and lose track of what I meant to do.

However, I stand by my removal of the entire thread. How was your comment productive in any way? What did it do, aside from stirring up the same old debate about Kurt that have been hashed, rehashed, and beaten to death with a bludgeon? ("Same shit different day" is the best phrase I can think of about the perpetual cloud of drama that follows Kurt) It wasn't about the candidate, and it didn't do an actual dissection of the opposing rationale; it just poked and prodded Kurt, which happens too much.

I removed the comments and replaced it with one that, I felt, would help dissuade additional unproductive and drama-spewing discussions. I seem to have caused a bit myself, and I apologize for it as that wasn't my intent, but really, we all collectively need to stop harping on Kurt every time he opens his mouth and move on. There are much better things we can get worked up, such as splitting hairs over the exact wording of WP:IAR and other such worthy pursuits...

And as an aside, cheers to your off-wiki activities. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I know you removed those comments with the best of intentions, but I would ask people to calm down and take due responsibility for creating the drama and disruption themselves, by talking about it. In German there's the word "herbeireden", which has no literal English translation but roughly means creating something by talking about it ("self-fulfilling prophecy" would be too dramatic). Balloonman did this today, and it had none —not even a potential— purpose whatsoever. It was far worse than my initial comments (or Kurt's opposes, for that matter) and I sincerely hope he sees this. In no way e.g. did I challenge Kurt's right to comment, nor do my comments amount to harassment, which term carries certain wikispecific connotations. How needlessly inflammatory. So, I hope you understand, I'm not the one who gets worked up. Not until an admin challenges my right to freely comment in RfAs, on-topic but the way I see fit. I'm not the one who took this to WT:RfA. Balloonman did, and his actions were shortsighted to say the very least and most civil and calm I have to say about this. Cheers. Dorftrottel (troll) 00:36, April 11, 2008

(just a placeholder response so you know I'm not ignoring you; your post deserves a lot more attention than I can give it right now, and I don't think you want a half-assed answer... next extended break I get, I'll give you the proper response you deserve) EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I came here to award Evula a barnstar for her removing your comments. But seeing that you are calling my action sortsighted, I have to respond. No. The community has repeatedly affirmed Kurt's right to oppose people for whatever reason he wishes to while acknowledging that the crats will give his voice the appropriate amount of attention it deserves. You (and others) tend to disrupt the process by commenting on his legitimate !votes everytime---by mocking and criticizing him/his position. His position has been discussed and essentially discounted, but his right to his view has been repeatedly affirmed. While attacks against him, have not been. It is disruptive because and yes, you do attack Kurt! I personally will follow in EVula's footsteps and delete these attacks. They, not Kurt's votes, have become disruptive and YOU have declared your intention to continue to be disruptive.Balloonman (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[2]. Dorftrottel (complain) 23:43, April 11, 2008

Just a note that I'm still looking forward to that reply since apparently, Balloonman shows no insight as to his own part in this; he has now picked up (and vows to continue) removing RfA comments by me and others he deems as "unconstructive". I'm perfectly willing to drop the matter, but I do not feel comfortable with Balloonman's aggressive stance and his attacks and allegations of disruption against me. I feel like he might snap at any moment and just remove any comment he deems unconstructive. Since ANI is this big admin-love-admin cesspool, I know that bringing it up there won't have any results, and since Balloonman is now justifying his actions by referring to your judgement, I was hoping you could help with determining what kinds of comments are and what kinds of comments are not allowed in RfAs; and also whether or not it is infact appropriate for Balloonman himself to continue removing comments of mine and not let someone else, less involved and less emotionally attached, handle the matter. Dorftrottel (canvass) 17:56, April 14, 2008

Yeah, sorry. I've been working on a website all weekend and using WP as more or less a break from it; as a result, I've been doing light, fluffy editing, rather than sitting down and giving this thread some thought (which, given the above conversation, looks like I'll need to give it even more consideration). I'll try to get back to you by EOD today. My apologies. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've asked both good editors to hash this out away from talkpages, away from RFAs. Today's posts from each editor today are beyond pointy and, IMO have crossed the line. Need less heat, more light. If your interested, here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet another location cannot solve the essential problem, I'm afraid. Dorftrottel (warn) 19:34, April 14, 2008

It's a good faith effort to get you both to fight it out. It gets it off EVula's page, WT:RFA, it avoids further escalation to ridiculous Wikidrama crap. Worth a shot. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally responding

Oy vey. Just goes to show that, if you don't address something immediately, you'll get even more stuff to read over...

Anyway, I can't actually comment for all the other stuff related to this; I'm not comfortable speaking for others. Instead, I'll just speak for myself; not because I'm particularly good at it, mind you, but I'm liable to get slightly less flak for it. :)

I understand, and in no way doubt, that your comment was placed in good faith. However, given the ridiculous amount of contention and emotion (ie: drama) that surrounds Kurt pretty much every time he participates in RfAs, I still feel that the removal of that entire thread was the right thing to do.

Key questions:

• Could I have phrased my statement better, in a tone that was a bit less dismissive? Yes.
• Should I have followed it up with an explanatory post on your and Lradrama's talk pages? Yes.
• Was the thread productive, aiding the discussion of the current candidate? No.
• Is Kurt's RfA participatory statement pretty much the same as it always is? Yes.
  • Was there any reason to discuss/debate/whatever his rationale in that particular RfA? No.
• Should EVula stop making vaguely assholesque edits, especially when he's in the middle of a bunch of other crap that prevents him from giving the repercussions of his ill-advised actions the full amount of attention they deserve? Oh hells yeah. :)

Has the situation been handled especially well since I made that initial edit? No, I don't feel it has been. I tried to remain very neutral in terms of the participating editors when I made that call; I've never said anyone was harassing anyone. I tried to point out the futility of the discussion and nip in the bud; I readily admit that my attempts failed in that respect.

I do apologize for the resultant drama (not to mention the extreme delay of this response), and would like to know what it would take for me to "make things right" as much as I can on my end. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for the explanatory comment. As to the point "Was there any reason to discuss/debate/whatever his rationale in that particular RfA? No." — You know, I do fully agree. Then again —and this is a valid concern whatever any number of other people "agree on"— does Kurt Weber's oppose rationale pertain to any particular RfA? No, but since the community has decided to tolerate those generic opposes, it should imho also be allowed to reply to those comments of his, much like to any other comments in what -ostensibly- is a discussion. The fact that the responses to Kurt's generic oppose don't have much to do with any particular RfA follows logically from the fact that Kurt's oppose itself has nothing to do with any particular RfA in the first place. At any rate, after the reactions I got from Balloonman, I'll probably just accept that RfA is not a discussion any longer and that I cannot freely comment there lest it be assumed to be pointy disruption, harassment, attacks, and what other nice words have been used. All in all, there's not much more that you could do. Thanks again. Dorftrottel (canvass) 06:16, April 16, 2008

Okay, when considering Kurt's "generic oppose", ask yourself a key question: Why does he oppose? Because he has personal requirements for an RfA. Yes, his requirements are abnormally stringent, but that's all he's going by: his requirements. I have my own requirements, and have opposed RfAs that have failed to meet my expectations. That is no more or less unrelated to the particular RfA than Kurt's comments are; the only difference is that my requirements are a little bit looser than his (and I tend to have a bit more tact).

The only problem here ("here" being defined as the whole of the Kurt debacle, which is much, much larger than the one RfA and my edit that touched off this entire line of discussion) is that people keep responding, often times very negatively, to Kurt's comments. There's no reason for it, and I've seen a lot of disruption caused over what is, esentially, the system working exactly as it should: people expressing their opinions. While I'm usually 100% open to the discussion of rationales (of both oppose and support !votes), I have absolutely no faith that such a dialogue can be had in a calm and rational manner in the RfAs themselves, which is why I've adopted such a hard[ass] attitude about the entire situation.

As for your own RfA participation, nobody short of ArbCom can tell you to stop participating (and here I mean "judging individual RfA candidates via your own personal criteria"). Responding to Kurt, bad idea, and should be kept to an absolute minimum. But !voting? Anyone telling you that you can't is outright wrong. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Surprised at deletion of User:Jflodmi515

I am a little puzzled on your deletion of User:Jflodmi515. I have watchlisted this user since he placed a nasty post on my Talk page April 8th and since he's on his way to an indef . Just curious as User talk:Jflodmi515 would have to be CSD#G8 as an orphan Talk page now. -- Alexf⁴² 00:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The user in question didn't create the page; someone else did. If Jflodmi515 had created it, I wouldn't have touched it (the editor who did create it has recently popped onto my radar, so I was perusing his contribs).

Also, please re-read G8; user and talk pages are excluded. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. My bad. Cheers. -- Alexf⁴² 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, that happens to everyone but me. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

For you consideration...

... on your funny subpage.

<Riana> you know what's odd

<Riana> I sent cuddles to all my facebook friends yesterday

<Riana> and all I've gotten back are spankings

<Riana> I appear to be friends with some dirty dirty people

<LaraLove> What did I send you?

LaraLove thinks a spanking

<Riana> you sent me spankings too!

<LaraLove> haha

<LaraLove> Yea... I guess you have a spankable ass.

<Riana> I guess so.

<LaraLove> At least we didn't all teabag you.

<LaraLove> So it could have been worse, Riana

<Riana> lol, did I tell you what it does when you want to teabag someone?

<LaraLove> spot of tea

<Riana> lame!

<LaraLove> srs

<Riana> if I want to rub my balls in someone's face... THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO DO

Good day. Lara❤Love 13:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably an inappropriate time to mention that I totally had a dream about you yesterday, dude. It was a very family-friendly one, don't worry. But it involved you kicking the ass of a shoe salesman. No idea. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah man, I had a dream about you last night too...er...gotta go. >_> GlassCobra 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

 :O Dude, you have chicks in the BRC now. You can stop fantasising about poor EVula. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I had a dream about all three of you last night... and a shoe salesman. I know why EV was kicking his ass. ;) Lara❤Love 13:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Quote added. Love it. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I, Balloonman, hereby award this Barnstar to EVula for removing comments related to KMWeber on RfA's. I think that is a great solution!

Thanks! I still have a couple of reservations about the whole thing (primarily related to the thread above), but I still believe that, in the long run, it's the best course of action. We'll see... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Star for thee

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		Your fun and opining sections are freakin' hilarious--probably ten times funnier than anything I could write. 21655 ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 13:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yay! I generally write and keep that stuff around for my own amusement; I'm glad to know that at least someone else appreciates it as well. :)

Also, this is my tenth Good Humor barnstar. If anyone ever accuses me of being too serious, I'm afraid that I'll just have to smack them across the face. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tenth. That explains a lot....

Speaking of opining sections, you might want to check this out. I'll admit I have a habit of taking pages out of other people's books, but hey, they're well-written books! 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 17:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, weren't you the first guy who opposed my 2nd RFA? The "not going down w/o fight" one? I hope that screwup didn't give you TOO much of a negative image of me... 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 02:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it makes you feel any better, I don't hold grudges or anything when it comes to RfAs; not only do I have epic fail-level memory, but I try to judge each RfA on its own merits. For example, on hmwith's 2nd RfA, I commented that I'd been under the impression that she was already an admin, despite having participated (being Neutral) in her first RfA. And now, apparently, we're getting married, though I think it'd be a bit much for you to expect the same treatment... ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

True dat. I've got a feeling the 3rd RfA will be a bit less...er, cloudy-minded, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see....

I've also noticed...that I use...ellipses...very indiscriminately.... 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 16:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well... there are worse things to abuse. For example... well... I hate when people use "quotes" on things that don't need them. Drives me... crazy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Well", "there's" "that". We could probably go on for hours...er, posts, on stuff that's abused when it doesn't need to be, but I'm starting to get off the point, which is that you're freakin' hilarious. Case closed. ... ... ... ... (By the way, did you read this? Try thinking of it as a violent collision of surrealism and complete and utter randomness, with a side of beef thrown in. Always gotta have "beef" when you're being random.)21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 22:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The main thing I got from that is that you should be a writer for Adult Swim. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 22:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Adult Swim specializes in insanely random humor. You'd fit in well, methinks. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"I" "now" "get" "it". 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 22:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

All done. Enjoy.... 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 19:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

...I really wish I had as much spare time as you, apparently. :) (seriously, most of my essays are only half-done because I do the initial burst of writing, and then move on to something else. I'm a wikignome because I can't focus on an article for too long without getting bored) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha! There I am... I know you can only go so long without talking about me, EVula. ;) hmwithτ 19:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Post-transcriptional regulation

Thanks. And, yes, it was a crappy copyright violation--which took 2 minutes to correct. However, I see all sorts of places that articles needed improvement are listed, like stub categories. There is a wikiproject Medical Genetics page, so I will post it there for need of help as the topic is of major importance for human HIV. Surprising omission for Wikipedia, topic wise. --Blechnic (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

*shrug* Not the first time I've seen a good-faith AfD that was severely out of place. Oh well; no harm, no foul. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 14th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 16	14 April 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Interview with the team behind one of the 2,000th featured articles	Image placeholders debated
WikiWorld: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: Board meeting, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Featured article milestone
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good reading material

User:Elaragirl/wpphil. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Any essay that starts with "I guarantee this page will piss you completely the fuck off" gets my attention, that's for damn sure. :) I should add a "See also" section to my own AGF essay. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yay. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your [my] contributions to UAA

I thought it was a blatant violation but an administrator said it was fine. I presumed (s)he would know better so I put that template on it as a compromise. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 07:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh Christ... it never ends!!!

No more words need to be said, I'm guessing. I think I speak for everyone when I say; "double-you, tea, eff" :P ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought things had been too quiet on that front... blocked. If he makes another account, I'll ask a CU for assistance, but it doesn't seem like these are sleeper accounts or anything; all they could do is confirm what he's saying. *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually laughed out loud when I clicked on his User name, after the link had mysteriously turned from red to blue, and saw the indef block template =D But I'm guessing that he'll try this every few months or so; if I remember correctly, he tried it a while ago as well, so my guess is that every few months, he gets bored and thinks "I wonder how THA and EVula are doing", then pays a visit to Wikipedia. Still, at least his visits have been infrequent. As always, thanks for the help with him =D ≈ The Haunted Angel 14:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel so unloved; he only bugs you, and leaves me alone. Oh woe is me! EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Heads up AGF

Hi, have you seen User:Filll/AGF Challenge by Filll (talk • contribs • count)? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll have to take it sometime when I'm not swamped with uter stuff... which means I don't know if I'll ever take it, but whatever! :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WikipediaWeekly Episode 45

Hello again! Just a note that WikipediaWeekly Episode 45 has been released. Listen and comment at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/04/14/wikipedia-weekly-45-blps-revisited/. Cheers, WODUP 20:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you no longer wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from that list.

Hi

Hi. Wanna be friends? --WeezleBeezle (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, well, generally I don't consider someone my friend unless I've worked with them a lot. I'm not opposed to being friends, I'm just a fairly guarded person. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You should want to be EVula's friend. When I was new, I asked him to be my friend. He said yes, and, now, we're getting married in June. God bless Wikipedia. hmwithτ

Wikipedia:Changing username

Greetings. I've reverted you here at Wikipedia:Changing username. If an IP makes a request for an account to renamed, it is tagged with {{CHU|nottaken|IP address}}, thus giving a chance for the user to login and confirm the request. Thanks, Qst (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it not solely because it was an IP, but because the request was severely botched as well. Because of that, Kingturtle just accidentally said it was done. :) *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your interference

Your interfering comments have been address on my talk page. Giano (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Danke. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting the vandalism on my user page and dealing with the culprit. Jackaranga (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied

at my talk page. Eusebeus (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

Help?

I need help with my archiving. I want, if possible, to begin the bot archiving in my 3rd archive, all threads older than 2 days. Also, if possible, I've tried and failed, to have a new archive started automatically every two months, or do I have to do this manually? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustihowe (talk • contribs)

Eh, you're probably asking the wrong person; I do all my archiving manually, broken up by quarters, so I have no experience with the archiving bots. I'm also pretty bad about actually doing the archiving (as you can see, my page starts at April 1st, though it is pretty hilarious), which results in rather long pages every once and a while... EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 19:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 17	21 April 2008	About the Signpost

BLP deletion rules discussed amidst controversial AFD	Threat made against high school on Wikipedia, student arrested
Global login, blocking features developed	WikiWorld: "Disruptive technology"
News and notes: Wikimania security, German print Wikipedia, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes	WikiProject Report: The Simpsons
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear, oh dear...

He actually seems sincere... but going under the name "American Brit" doesn't help his case... ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have been more receptive to his requests if he hadn't protested the last block by saying he was going to press charges against me. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Fun times =D ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

News from Ariel Gold...

HOORAY!!!! Have been very worried. GREAT to know was for naught! Thank you, EVula! Shir-El too 19:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. I'd actually had a conversation with her on IRC many moons ago where she more or less said that she could die and nobody online would know, so I was really worried. I can't remember the last time I was that happy to get an email. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Philosopher

I think I remember you in the past dealing (removing?) with commentary after Kurt Weber prima facie opposes. It happened in this new RfA, and of course there is a new discussion regarding the whole thing in the RfA. It's hard to handle... commenting in the RfA would only add to it, posting on user talk pages wouldn't do much. I just don't think the back-and-forth that has little to do with the RfA should be included. Just a heads-up. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it to the talk page; that seems to be the best course of action when dealing with this type of situation, as the outright removal of the discussion can be rather poorly received (as I've found out first hand). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just coming here to say that moving the discussion is way better than blanking/removing it outright. EVula is the shit sysop. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm very happy to prove that, on occasion, I can learn from my mistakes, despite certain chapters from my love life suggests a different story entirely... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh.....Interesting.....And I had heard that EVula never makes mistakes? Maybe you should show that essay to your future love life participants? Or maybe not....... In fact, don't. That'll probably kill any possible "activity" that you may be about to partake in.... Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:EVULA is largely only about Wikipedia. Unless I start dating a fellow Wikipedian (my engagement to hmwith not withstanding), I'll sadly probably continue to still have plenty of mistakes on that front. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:u

^^^^ New Staffwaterboy ^Talk♂ 17:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got your talk page watchlisted, you don't need to give me a reminder. Thanks though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Reason #87423 why EVula is teh best

Thanks for wikignoming the shit out of my userpages. And you wonder why I need you in my life? So, basically, I made you a special present for when you come home from the wiki-office. Enjoy. hmwithτ 23:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Aww, thanks dear! ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 46 and 47

Just a quick note: Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 46 and 47 are out. A good listen as always. :) Cheers, WODUP 03:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

New messages from Mifter

--Mifter (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If got you on my watchlist, no need to place this tag; trust me, I'll find you... mwuhahah!
*cough* 'Scuse me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

recent warning

Hi, your recent warning made me feel :( It was my first edit and you used a sledgehamnmer to crack a walnut; it was just a joke lighten up. May i remind you of wp:newbies. Thank you for your time and may the force be with you.--Gibbon45 (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Your very first edit being borderline harassment is a very choice of a first edit. Perhaps I overreacted, I'm willing to say, but you should also be cognizant of how your edits are likely to be interpreted by others. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits as those is classified as cyberbullying, which is classified as harassment in the United States. Although I'm not going to go wild over it, other people might, so just remember to think before you speak (or in this case type). GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for !voting in my Rfa. I hope I can learn and build from it. CJ2005B (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it went down the way it did, but I'm glad you aren't taking any of it personally. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Hello again, just following up and wondering what editing needs to be done so the article on Ringler Associates will not be subject to deletion. Thanks Ringlernm (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that feel completely off my radar.

I took another look at Ringler Associates. Aside from the fact that it comes across as blatant advertising for the company, it also does nothing to establish Ringler's notability. I'd recommend gathering up some reliable sources (such as news articles) that suggest that Ringler Associates is notable enough to be in Wikipedia.

If you have any other questions, just drop me a line. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

		The GO-PCHS-NJROTC Abuse Report and Antivandal Barnstar
		For reverting vandalism to this cadet's user talk page. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Not that I'm one to turn down a barnstar, but I don't recall reverting any vandalism on your userpage.. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Silly me, I was looking on the user page, rather than the user talk page. My bad. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Guess who

Go on, take a guess who it is before you click, I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I was hoping it was a supermodel asking for advice about which bra looked better. Boy was I wrong... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually laughed out loud when I read that =D ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA

When all those votes were cast, the RfA was transcluded. It was removed by balloonman because the user had under ten edits. Tan | 39 15:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha, I just came here to say, "wow, that was vague" and to specify what I was talking about, but it looks like you figured it out. Never mind, nothing to see here. Tan | 39 15:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that about 10 seconds after removing them, and then promptly reverted myself. Sometimes being bored at work can have devastating effects. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nod... edits wikipedia instead of work...Balloonman (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Email blocks

Hey, EVula. Just a reminder that email should not be disabled as a default when blocking accounts. Per the blocking policy, email should only be disabled in response to abuse of the email function. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 20:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally missed that. Eep. Thanks for the heads up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries. It's a bit of a pet peeve (odd, I know) and I've seen a fair number of admins doing it. Thanks for the quick response. - auburnpilot talk 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's a legitimate thing to have as a pet peeve. I generally only do it to accounts that I feel don't feel like have a snowball's chance of getting unblocked (blatant username vios, vandalism-only accounts, etc), but if it's against policy, then it's against policy.
Besides, that's a better pet peeve than any of mine. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for this. Gerrish (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Actually, it was my first rollback permissions change, so I should thank you for making the request. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it would have been my 355-something rollback granting had I been a few seconds faster. :) You beat me! :) Acalamari 21:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought I felt someone breathing down my neck... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, I've sent you an E-mail. Acalamari 22:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Get out of my head! [that will make no sense to anyone but Acalamari] EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Made sense to me. But then again, I'm a minor prophet. And a snoop. And a private investigator. Also know as a Dick. I'm a dick. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, I'm now going to quote that out of context whenever possible.
If you can email me exactly what Acalamari asked me, I'll consider not quoting it. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Very scary! Acalamari 22:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

EVula, you might want to take at Gerrish's recent rollback contribs. Many of them are not vandalism reverts. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I just checked his last forty edits, and all the rollbacks looked valid to me (there was a total of one that was very mildly concerning). Anything in particular that you noticed? I can't do a more thorough check at the moment, but can later tonight. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'd be interested as well. Please enlighten. Gerrish (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi didn't mean to come off as accusatory. Here are some: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Obviously good faith reverts, but these are not blatant vandalism. I also agree they are mild, but this is just in the last two days since the tool was given. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 20:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's standard that the date articles don't allow red links. PseudoBot (talk · contribs) does the exact same reverts with no explanation.[8] Another example of yours is spam - also a candidate for rollback per my understanding. In general, my protocol is to use rollback whenever the reason for the revert is - as you said - obvious, like this one where someone claims the Mets won the NL pennant in 2006. Obviously untrue. Gerrish (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll let EVula deal with it, but correct protocol for rollback is NOT whenever the reason is obvious. I revert things that are obvious all the time, but if they are not blatant vandalism, I undo with a detailed explanation. The Mets one is the best example. Of course they didn't win the pennant, but they did win their division for first time in 18 years or whatever and had the best record in the NL, so its not crazy that a user would have mistaken that. I'm fairly sure we don't rollback such edits. Some of those date articles were good faith additions, albeit wrong. The football manager was put in death when it should have been birth... this is an error, not vandalism. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that depends on your definition of "blatant". To the casual observer, no, it's not a major gaffe. But for the editor, there's only a little bit of leeway we should give them in regards to their intentions; I can only barely believe that the person actually factually thought that the Mets really did win in 2006. As a result, it's blatant because the intent was malicious (though that might be too strong a term; I don't think they were out to destroy Wikipeda, but I have trouble believing in their good intentions). Same with the football manager; the edit said he was born in the 1880s, which is ridiculous, and it came at the expense of an existing listing (ie: I would have a different attitude about their intentions if it had been a new addition to the list).

I think removing redlinks from date pages[9] and potential spam[10] should be done with a manual edit summary, however, even if the usual bot doesn't even do that. If you do more than the bot, you're just ensuring that humanity can put off our eventual overthrowing by machines. ;)

Gerrish, since you're watching this, I'll just point out here that perhaps you should be less trigger-happy with the rollback, but even these examples I wouldn't consider to be particularly outlandish violations of rollback; I know I've been guilty of removing bogus content from March 17 (my birthday) with rollback (and to be fair, date articles tend to attract a lot of bogus edits; I'm willing to believe that I'm not 100% clear-minded on this front). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine but I'll point out that WP:ROLLBACK#When not to use Rollback says not to use it "If there is any doubt about whether an edit should be rolled back"... In the examples given above, I had no doubt - and I don't think you folks would have either. Gerrish (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Ha! I didn't no that EV was a patty. Happy b-day, patty. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The deeply ironic part is that I don't drink. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You could always wear green though. I don't drink either. I guzzle. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 48

Hey there! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 48, Wikipedia Weekly's third talk with Jimmy Wales, is now available. Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.

Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!

Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!

Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!

Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!

For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 23:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 18	2 May 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikimedia Board to expand, restructure	Arbitrator leaves Wikipedia
Bot approvals group, checkuser nominations briefly held on RfA	WikiWorld: "World domination"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Did You Know ...	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 19	9 May 2008	About the Signpost

Sister Projects Interview: Wikiversity	WikiWorld: "They Might Be Giants"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for correcting that on my user page. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 21:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's fun to scurry about in peoples' userspace. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Indents

You just messaged me as I realised. ;) Thanks! asenine ^{say what?} 17:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, I completely missed a line when I went in to correct the indentation. D'oh! EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Further issues...

Could you take a look here? This was the recent RfA candidate in question. I'm not sure how user pages like this are handled... if some of the info there needs to be permanently deleted, or if the whole account is problematic because the user may not be in fact the real-life person they claim to be. I guess this is something I need to learn about, but in the mean-time, I thought I'd ask admin to see if anything needs to be done quickly. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've purged the edit from the page's history, and left a stern warning for the anon (with it being their only edit, I can't tell how dynamic their IP is, so a block might not do any good, and I'd rather see some more editing from them before I block them). At the very least, it was a probably copyvio. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. On this topic: when a user account is created with the user claiming to be a real-life person, with a real picture of said person shown, is this always OK? I am not doubting in this case that Bkerensa is the person he says he is, but what is to stop someone from looking up that name on a news search and creating a wikipedia account with such info? The concern that I have is potentially controversial real life people may draw others to come and post whatever nasty stuff they can find... as shown on that user:page and in the RfA. Hypothetically, if Bkerensa wasn't actually Kerensa, the real life person might be quite upset about such an account. Sorry if I'm getting too theoretical. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

One possibility would be to look up and contact a non-Wikipedia email for this person to verify that it's really them. I too have been left wondering whether this really is the real-life person it claims to be, or someone else trying to make that person look bad. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[ec] It's a very fine line, and one dependent on many different factors. The primary factor here, though, is the fact that Benjamin Kerensa (the one mentioned in the article; to reduce confusion, I'll just call him Mr. Kerensa) doesn't have an article (non-notable), and I personally consider notability to be paramount when deciding whether a username is acceptable or not. If Mr. Kerensa had an article, I'd be a lot wearier of allowing Bkerensa to proclaim himself under the same name (though due to the difference in the exact name, I'd be inclined to allow it, as long as a specific declaration were made that Bkerensa was not the same as Mr. Kerensa).

Another factor that would normally come into play would be, for instance, how common the name is. I wouldn't jump all over User:John Smith as being John Smith (comics), though someone named User:Jimmy Smits would be a bit more actionable. Behavioral patterns matter as well; someone named User:Mbrooks editing Max Brooks would raise an eyebrow, whereas someone named User:Lhutton (see Lauren Hutton) editing Jair Iglesias is a lot less suspicious.

I'd also like to point out how much time it took me to find those samples. For example, I discovered that Carey goes straight to Jim Carey, and that pretty much every John Smith is dead, which almost completely wrecked my first example. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good points. For me, in this case, I see two problems. Acknowledging that Mr. Kerensa is not notable enough for his own article, there is still personal info about Mr. Kerensa on user BKerensa's talk page. So, the username thing aside, there still might be BLP issues here (although the info is no defamatory). The other issue, as I briefly mention on David's page, is that the negative article about Mr. Kerensa was added by an ip, and after that there seems to have been ample time for BKerensa to have seen it and removed it, but he allowed it to stay. I'm not sure on this because it is now a deleted edit. Either way, it raises a red flag for me. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, about the personal info of Mr. Kerensa vs. BKerensa, that's largely a toss-up. I'm willing to assume good faith on that front, given the dearth of evidence against it being the same person. In such a case, it comes down to behavioral observations; BKerensa has done nothing to make people think he's the same Mr. Kerensa that was mentioned in the article. All he's done is mention his name (which lots of editors do, myself included, though my name is a bit more hidden away). If you hadn't brought that edit to my attention, I never once would have considered him to be anyone other than who he is, or that he had ever done anything of note (good or bad).

As for the time elapsed, you're spot on; the anon made that edit on February 10, a fact that had completely passed me by. There are many ways that something like that can skip by; a common one is too many items in the watchlist (something I hit constantly, as I currently have 2,662 in my list; sometimes it's easier for me to use my contribs page than my watchlist). In looking at Special:Contributions/Bkerensa, however, there was a massive break in edits between November 16, 2007 and May 9, 2008. An edit that happened in mid-February would have been pretty far past his watchlist's furthest listing (I just hit "all" on my own watchlist, and it only goes back a single month). I've taken little wiki-vacations before (unannounced), and despite being a seasoned wiki veteran, I certainly don't feel the compulsion to check out my own userpage (surprise surprise, I'm not quite that vain...), so I'm willing to bet it didn't occur to BKerensa, either.

There does seem to be something strange afoot, between the IP edit and the attack RfA, but I'm not entirely sure what it is, and with the elapsed time between the two, it might very well just be a red herring. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Username

What is wrong with my username? I don't understand your concern.

–RWReagan (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The concern is the similarity to Ronald Reagan. Generally speaking, we don't allow usernames that are so close to the names of well known political figures. I'd recommend changing the username to something a bit more nondescript (even if it's your real name, sometimes using a pseudonym is better). EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Indentation of UAA templates

I do indent them with a few colons, but for some reason they never show up that way. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well... sure enough. My bad. I'll go hacking around with the template to figure out what the deal is. Sorry about that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry; it wasn't personal. I figured there was some problem with the template, and given the TfD and my uneasy skill when fixing template problems (I can do it ... I just prefer when possible to leave it to those who are better at it), I wasn't about to fix it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, editing templates is a bit more nerve-wracking them editing articles; instead of screwing up one page, there's the possibility of screwing up hundreds! It's good times all around. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 20	12 May 2008	About the Signpost

Explicit sexual content draws fire	Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia
Foundation receives copyright claim from church	Board to update privacy policy, adopts data retention policy
Update on Citizendium	Board candidacies open through May 22
Two wiki events held in San Francisco Bay Area	New feature enables users to bypass IP blocks
WikiWorld: "Tony Clifton"	News and notes: Autoconfirmed level, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at Featured lists
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Avengers (film series)

This edit of mine was largely a mistake... I simply meant to add italics to Hulk. You accidently reverted the italics on that film when you reverted my entire change so I put the part I intended back. Sorry about the mix up.--Dr who1975 (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, simple enough mistake to make (I've done it myself). No harm, no foul. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 49

Good news! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 49 is now available. Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.

Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!

Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!

Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!

Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!

For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 22:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Signature

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Thanks for the help with my sig, even if it was purely codewise. Every little helps! :) asenine say what? 21:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm ever so happy to see my code-related OCD-ness get translated into something that's actually beneficial somehow. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to restyle it tomorrow morning, using the code you have helped with as a base. :) asenine ^{say what?} 22:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Nifty. Feel free to drop me a line if you want me to go over it again; the font tags are actually outdated these days, but the "right" way of doing it would have taken several more characters. Span tags are the way to go. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sweetaz

Sorry about that, I removed both names just as soon as you made your comment, and I think it overlapped. The edit summary wasn't directed at you. I was just flummoxed when I saw those reports. : )Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I was thinking the exact same thing. When it comes to removing UAA reports, I'm of the mind that if one editor says it's not a violation and a second agrees, the second should just remove it; that's exactly what I did (in removing and commenting at the same time), and what you did as well, so I'm certainly not bothered by it. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I dropped the reporting user a note that the two weren't blatant violations. We certainly don't need to be biting the newbies. Ah well, UAA is always getting peppered with ambiguous names, one of the more tricky areas to work in methinks. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there are lots of non-actionable reports that come through. I've got some 70+ edits to the bot page, mostly removing false positives... EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't visit the names page too often, but I saw them and thought the same thing...Balloonman (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My Recent Rfa

Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)